U.S. v. Sierra-Castillo

• Decision Date: 03 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. 03-2123.,03-2123.
• Citation: 405 F.3d 932
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel SIERRA-CASTILLO, also known as Manuel Dominguez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

405 F.3d 932

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel SIERRA-CASTILLO, also known as Manuel Dominguez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-2123.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 3, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Carlos Ibarra-Aguirre, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant.

Laura Fashing, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before SEYMOUR, PORFILIO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant-appellant Manuel Sierra-Castillo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following a conviction for a felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1)-(2) and 1326(b)(1). On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in denying him downward departures on grounds of exceptional family circumstances and overrepresentation of criminal history. In supplemental briefing, he further argues that his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") is contrary to the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Blakely, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Because the district court's error in denying the downward departures was harmless and the court's Booker error does not satisfy the standard for plain-error review, this court affirms Sierra-Castillo's sentence.

II. BACKGROUND

Sierra-Castillo's base offense level for illegal reentry following a conviction for a felony was eight. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a) (2002).¹ This offense level was enhanced by sixteen levels pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Guidelines because of Sierra-Castillo's prior conviction for attempted sexual assault. It was reduced by three levels for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1(b), resulting in a final offense level of twenty-one. Based on the prior attempted sexual assault conviction and another prior conviction for burglary, Sierra-Castillo's criminal history category was III. His sentencing range under the Guidelines was therefore forty-six to fifty-seven months.

Sierra-Castillo moved for a downward departure on grounds of exceptional family circumstances, arguing that his common-law wife suffered from breast cancer and that his incarceration would deprive her of needed financial and emotional support during her illness. He also asked for a departure based on overrepresentation of criminal history on the ground that his conviction for attempted sexual assault was nearly fifteen years old at the time of his illegal reentry. The district court denied both departures, stating:

[I]t's difficult for me to see how he has left the heartland..., and it doesn't impress me as being aberrant behavior in this case. I'm sympathetic to his wife's medical condition. Unfortunately, I'm faced with that frequently enough that I'm afraid that likely doesn't leave the heartland either, in this part of the jurisdiction.

The court sentenced Sierra-Castillo to forty-six months of incarceration, the low end of the Guidelines range.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Downward Departures²

Sierra-Castillo argues that in considering his motion for downward departures, the district court erroneously defined the heartland as "this part of the jurisdiction" (i.e., the southern part of the District of New Mexico). He cites United States v. Reyes-Rodriguez for the proposition that the heartland is instead properly defined with reference to all criminal defendants nationwide. 344 F.3d 1071, 1074 n. 1 (10th Cir.2003). The government responds that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of a downward departure, and that the district court's refusal to downwardly depart was in any event justified.

1. Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), this court has jurisdiction to review a defendant's appeal of a sentence that was (1) "imposed in violation of law," (2) "imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines," (3) imposed as a result of the granting of an upward departure, or (4) "imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable." See United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874, 887-88 (10th Cir.1998).³ This court has no jurisdiction, however, to review a district court's discretionary decision to deny a motion for downward departure on the ground that a defendant's circumstances do not warrant the departure. Id. at 887. A district court is presumed to understand that it has discretion to downwardly depart unless the court unambiguously states that it lacks such discretion. United States v. Fortier, 180 F.3d 1217, 1231 (10th Cir.1999). If the district court's language is ambiguous, this Court treats the case "as though the judge was aware of his or her legal authority to depart but chose instead, in an exercise of discretion, not to depart." Id.

The government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of Sierra-Castillo's motion for downward departures because the court did not unambiguously state that it was without authority to depart. The cases cited by the government, however, hold only that "when a sentence is within the guideline range and is not imposed in violation of law, or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, then the district court's refusal to exercise its discretion to depart downward from the guideline range is not appealable." United States v. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524, 1530 (10th Cir.1990) (footnotes omitted, emphasis added); see United States v. Rodriguez, 30 F.3d 1318, 1319 (10th Cir.1994). These cases do not purport to limit this court's authority to review legal error in the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines, even if those errors involve the interpretation of departure provisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1)-(2); United States v. Segien, 114 F.3d 1014, 1024 n. 7 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Lacey, 86 F.3d 956, 962 n. 2 (10th Cir.1996) ("While the government is correct that we will not review a district court's discretionary choice not to depart downward, there is no similar impediment to appellate review where a sentence is imposed ... in violation of law, or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines." (citation omitted)).

This court has found jurisdiction, for example, over a defendant's appeal claiming that the district court considered a prohibited factor under the Guidelines in denying a downward departure. United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150, 1161 (10th Cir.1999). Other cases have found jurisdiction over different legal questions in the application of Guidelines downward departure provisions. See, e.g., United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 170 F.3d 1038, 1039 (10th Cir.1999); United States v. Valdez, 158 F.3d 1140, 1141-42 (10th Cir.1998); United States v. James, 157 F.3d 1218, 1219 (10th Cir.1998).

There are both legal and factual components to a district court's definition of the applicable heartland. "Although a district court's decision to depart usually involves an essentially factual inquiry, in some cases the determination that a defendant falls outside an applicable guideline heartland will not be based primarily on the court's judgment about the facts of the case, but will involve the court's determination as to what constitutes a guideline's heartland." United States v. Collins, 122 F.3d 1297, 1303 n. 4 (10th Cir.1997), called into question on other grounds by United States v. Jones, 332 F.3d 1294, 1299 (10th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Jose-Gonzalez, 291 F.3d 697, 705 (10th Cir.2002). The district court's definition of the geographic scope of the Guidelines is an example of an essentially legal question that this court reviews de novo. Unlike the cases relied upon by the government, addressing the Guidelines question in this case would not require this court to interfere with the district court's exercise of discretion by "substitut[ing] its judgment for that of the sentencing court." Castillo, 140 F.3d at 888 (quotation omitted); United States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (1st Cir.1993) ("[T]he limited appellate review that is available serves to correct errors which are essentially `legal' in nature, but does not brook interference with a sentencing court's exercise of factfinding functions or discretion.").

This court therefore has jurisdiction to review the question whether the district court committed legal error in this case.

2. Error

This court reviews legal conclusions underlying the district court's refusal to depart downward de novo. United States v. Marquez-Gallegos, 217 F.3d 1267, 1269 (10th Cir.2000). The district court in denying Sierra-Castillo's motion for downward departures stated that the defendant's circumstances were not outside the heartland "in this part of the jurisdiction" (emphasis added). Contrary to the district court's statement, the heartland under the Guidelines is national in scope and is not limited to a particular jurisdiction or portion of a jurisdiction. Jose-Gonzalez, 291 F.3d at 704 ("[T]he Guidelines are national in scope, intended to provide a measure of uniformity throughout the country, so what may be common in one district for a period of time may still be unusual for the nation as a whole and outside the heartland for the offense."). The district court therefore committed legal error in its definition of the heartland.

3. Harmlessness

In Williams v. United States, the Supreme Court held that "once the court of appeals has decided that the district court misapplied the Guidelines, a remand is appropriate unless the reviewing court concludes, on the record as a whole, that the error ... did not affect the district court's selection of...